Past Few Years - Part 3 - Predestination cont'd

Here's what I meant, picking up from last time. I don't mean that everyone acknowledging Christ claims the label of Calvinist (obviously this is not true). There are reservations I have with taking the label as well, since it seems awfully focused on John Calvin, rather than on Jesus and the Scriptures. But my point is that every true Christian believes that God is sovereign over all, that it's Jesus and his power that saves us and it's not ourselves or our abilities that do so. Truly, this is the heart of what it means to be a Christian, to be humbled and ask for forgiveness of sins from God. However, it is my contention that Arminian theology does not hold to this, even though some claim it as their own that truly are Christians. A quote from Spurgeon, which is him caricaturing a prayer of an Arminian, illustrates this better than I can say:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, 'Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.'" (taken from a sermon entitled Free Will--A Slave)

The underlying problem with the Arminian system (meaning that ultimately it is the choice of a fallen human to believe in Christ and be saved) is that in the end the Arminian believer must boast in himself for his salvation, rather than in Christ. The reason is that Armianism (as opposed to Calvinism) espouses a system of doctrine teaching that all humans are given the same amount of grace to believe (termed prevenient grace by John Wesley), and some choose to accept it to their salvation and some choose to reject it to their damnation. This inescapably makes the work of Jesus on the cross merely a powerful suggestion (if we can say it has power at all), rather than a great work of redemption. Now I will fully admit that few Arminians would claim that their salvation was of their own doing, but if questioned logically they are left with no other possible path to take. All Christians, when squeezed in the press of rational consistency, must reveal the pulp of Calvinism. The Christian heart is inevitably Calvinist, since our hope is not in our own abilities, but in the sovereign power of God. (I know some may take great issue with this, so I reiterate here the secondary importance of this doctrine in being a Christian, though as I have noted I believe Calvinists and Arminians would all agree on the main point of God's sovereignty here, despite the stark difference in label and professed doctrinal loyalty.)

Many of my friends that I met in college would hold to the teachings of John Wesley (inevitable since this was at the Wesley Foundation of the United Methodist Church) and those of Jacobus Arminius by association, since Wesley was an adherent to this system of theology. Also, for the person I was closest to in college (no names mentioned), this was a large source of our conflict and eventual falling out, so I am quite familiar with the sentiment of the debate's other side.

I am also familiar because I have often taken the Arminian side, and have switched between the two a few times, whether for emotional reasons or for what I perceived as biblical ones. I was raised in the free will side of the Baptist church and given pretty much the standard Arminian stance: Jesus died for all sin and we just have to accept it to be saved, or: God chose everyone, we just have to choose him back. When I was confronted with the concept of Calvinism, I wrestled for a good while with it, and eventually aligned with it. Upon interacting with others in debate over this, I was forced to evaluate harsher the claims of the predestination clan, and was convinced for a time that it was not biblical. This turning back was due mostly to the influence of these few things (listed with how they were corrected afterwards):

• The audio teaching of Dennis McCallum (from Xenos Church in Columbus, Ohio) on Romans 9. McCallum, whose teaching was invaluable to me in much of my understanding of the Gospel in college, interpreted this passage to mean that the Jews were chosen, as it were, to be the vessel by which all the nations of the Earth would be blessed, and not chosen in the sense that they received forgiveness of sin and salvation. This was very intruiging to me and convinced me for a time, but it simply did not hold up in the context of Romans (though this is what he claimed), and especially by the verses that follow which speak very clearly of salvation (10:1). The purpose of this text is to point out that Israel does not believe and has rejected its Messiah, and that God has now opened wide the door of his blessing and salvation for Gentiles. Indeed, Christ the Messiah is the very blessing which the witness of Abraham and Israel pointed to. This is the promise spoken in the old days of a blessing to the nations--Jesus.
  
  
• Appeals to emotion and personal reasoning. This is the argument used most of the time by those that despise predestination. Admittedly, it simply doesn't seem right when we think that God predestines some for salvation and leaves the rest to their own devices. It also seems to violate the principle we call "free will." While I do agree with the notion of the free will of man, I also think that the majority's conception of it is critically erroneous. I believe that we have a choice to obey God or not, and the decisions we make everyday can be made either way. But I also believe that man's "free" will (which is a bestowal on us from God's perfect creation) has been indeterminably bent towards sin. We are forever free to sin and to will our own defiance from God. We are not free, however, to turn our hearts to the Lord on our own power, since we are endowed with the curse of Adam from birth. We can do the right thing from time to time, but we can never please God with the filthy rags of our righteous deeds (Isa. 64:6). We need the impartation of God's Spirit to us, a regenerated heart to be able to willfully love him, and a new nature to turn from sin and obey Jesus. And it's only by God's free action to give us these gifts and enable us to have faith in him again. In other words, our wills are in bondage, as Luther would say. Think of it this way: Adam's initial standing with God was perfect because God made it to be that way. Adam chose to sin against God by a free action. But Adam could not right the wrong he did through any amount of "free" action unless God came looking for him and granted him forgiveness (which he did), eventually by providing the ultimate sacrifice in Christ. The restoration of their relationship was made only by God in dying for the sin Adam committed, since it is by definition a divine act to forgive and redeem.
  
  
• My Methodist surroundings. I was surrounded by Methodists, 99.9% of which were Arminians. This isn't meant to be denigration since I have so much to owe to the environment I was placed in at Texas A&M, but merely an account of its truth. The environment you find yourself in is a big influence on the beliefs you lean towards. If you took a Methodist and put them in the opposite situation (perhaps in a PCA Church), I would bet that they would struggle with predestination also. Seeing people you love have different beliefs, and the character and integrity you see them draw from those beliefs is a strong witness to their veracity. Some of the strongest and most devout people I know are Methodists. I love my Methodist friends and I am indebted to the fellowship I have had with them (heck, my wife grew up Methodist), but I just simply disagree with a significant chunk of the doctrine. I just don't see it in the Bible. Much of this disagreement has nothing to do with predestination mind you, but is more along the lines of church practice. A lot of it has to do with the view of women in ministry (more on this later), as well as some of its practical stances on Scripture, homosexuality, etc. On the whole though, I see them as brothers and I would never separate myself from fellowship with them unless a bigger issue arose.
  
  

In the midst of struggling so much with all of this and leaning one way or the other, I discovered a preacher that would shape me the most in my life and my understanding of Christian truth. Not by a long shot does this only apply to predestination, but to a large degree its truth was solidified in my heart through the preaching of Mark Driscoll. Odd as it may seem, since he's been known by some sketchy identities (the Cussing Pastor, for one, as labeled by Donald Miller in Blue Like Jazz), but I was moved by his passion for the Scripture and for the Reformed faith, while maintaining his real personality. As he would say, he's a "boxer-wearing Calvinist (not briefs)." In some ways I feel like I've been swept up in the new wave of Calvinism among younger people, which is weird to say. Something about it appeals to white guys in their 20s. I'm not sure what. I think a lot of it has something to do with the whole emerging thing, with the younger generation wanting something new and different from Christianity and the church than the older traditional approach. Like any division, people go to the left (Emergent) and to the right (Calvinism), though I think the orthodox thrust of it is somewhere in the middle. Driscoll's theological push is for the church and its members to view themselves as missionaries in the culture, much like an overseas missionary would in a different nation. The goal is the same: to win people to Christ and disciple them. This is the historical view of the church. The Emergent side would claim something similar, to love people where they are and in the culture they inhabit, but they simply reject the foundation of historical Christian truth and seek to forge new territory.

But this is getting far off topic, so I will end this post here and continue later...

Past Few Years - Part 2 - Predestination

Reader beware: a post about predestination is required to be really long, so I have broken this one into two (but maybe three or four) sub-posts, if you will.

Perhaps the most challenging question, both theologically and personally, I've ever faced, and one I know has puzzled more than a few people, is that of predestination. It's a subject that is tackled by philosophers as well as theologians and laymen everywhere, and one that has caused so much discussion, debate, and even animosity that few topics can rival it. Everyone breathing has an opinion on it, and many that take a side can be fairly opinionated about it, even rabid in some cases. Well, I've been known to be fairly opinionated and on this topic also, and perhaps even rabid at times. The funny thing is, I've been on both sides of it a few times. I've gone back and forth over this question as my understandings of the Bible, of church history, and of theology have grown and changed.

My encounter with this most difficult of doctrines was not isolated in my study and was never a simple question, but rather has been and continues to be perhaps the broadest and most encompassing of all mysteries of the Christian truth (at least for me). If understood correctly (as I think that I at least have done in part), it cuts straight to the heart of Christianity and into the nature of who God is. Though this was my first genuinely conscious exposure to the idea of God's absolute sovereignty in all things (election/predestination) and its personal relation to myself occurred at a specific time in college, it was merely part of a much broader, larger shift that took place in all of my thinking and in my heart as to the nature and character of God.

To start, my conceptions of God when I began college were insufficient at best, and injurious at worst. Not only was my faith under a time of testing during this period (see Part 1), what was already established in my beliefs was sorely deficient. My idea of God was someone who hated when you drank alcohol and would hurt you somehow if you did. Also, he hated gay people and was just waiting to unleash hell on them. These, I'm afraid, have been the predominant erroneous convictions of conservative evangelicals growing up, especially Southern Baptists (of which I grew up as). (Note: I do still believe that God will let no sin go unpunished, since he is fully just and no one who is identified as an idolater, adulterer, homosexual, drunkard, thief, or whatever will inherit the kingdom of God but rather those that have been washed from these [since we have all broken the whole law by the guilt of only one violation of it - James 2:10] and given new identity in Christ [as in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11]).

Not that these are completely without truth, for surely those that abuse alcohol and sexuality will be held accountable, but this is simply a gross understatement of what God is about. God is not primarily the moral police. This belief is a seriously tragic oversight from the beauty and mystery of the eternal God. It is apparently the same pit the Pharisees of Jesus' day were infamous for falling into--Legalism. Legalism is an attempt to justify oneself apart from God's grace, to any degree I believe. If you think about it, we do it all the time. Every time you say, "well that person is not as good as me because I tithe, or I don't drink, or I pray 3 times a day and he only does 2 times a day, or I have a quiet time," it is so often based upon a legalistic attitude. One problem with this is that it ignores God's grace to me in allowing me to have anything. All are allocated different measures of grace and expected to be faithful with them in whatever amount they are given (Mt. 20:1-16). Another problem is that it ignores the utter falsehood in assuming that we are good merely because of what we do or don't do, and in doing so inevitably leaves the state and motive of the heart out of the question.

This is the jist of what I came to think about God, mainly because I wasn't thinking about him or reading anything. I just assumed that I had him all wrapped up in my little brain and knew what he expected from me (which wasn't much). Further, I wasn't even able to live up to my own standards of what I thought God demanded and all the more I became greatly remorseful over my shortcomings upon learning that what he demanded was nothing short of perfection (Mt. 5:48).

My first serious consideration of the concept of election/predestination was through my brother Tim and a sermon he gave me to read by Charles Haddon Spurgeon entitled "Election". Prior to this, I had heard the word predestination before, but it was always in the contextual assumption that this was a crazy notion and that certainly my Bible did not teach this, despite the fact that the word "predestine" was in there numerous times in several different forms. This sermon made me actually realize that if it is true that there even exists this word in Scripture, then there certainly must be some sort of predestination of something. Spurgeon's words spoke so clearly about what the Bible said that it was startling to me. It was startling because so few preachers actually teach in a plain way so as to just let the Bible speak for itself (that is, expositionally) instead of contorting it to say what they want it to say, injecting sarcasm and disdain for those that may disagree, and not facing the honest, immediate problems and questions that surface when the text is read. Instead, the assumption is made about the text, that it is truly and faithfully understood, before it is taught for reasons such as not wanting to ask honest questions, wanting to please the congregation, or wanting to appear as an expert before people (I would imagine at least).

The same felt true from some of the people I know that didn't seem to take the honest questions seriously. Pat answers were common. To their credit, I do believe that they are convinced in their own minds of their beliefs and that on the whole, the "free will camp" falls under the realm of Christian fellowship, and I would never "major on this minor." But, I would like to try and maintain that this question of predestination really does cut to the heart of the mysteries of God's grace. Believing it doesn't change our ability to be Christians, but it can reveal a lot about God and make a lot of sense out of the world, as well as drastically change how we worship and view him. For me, pat answers are simply not enough to explain Scriptures like Romans 9 and Ephesians 1-2, of which first impressions can leave the reader grasping at straws when based on Arminian assumptions. There is also the question of suffering: is God really in control of it or is he just powerless to do anything about it? I have yet to hear an Arminian argument about suffering that is sufficient without making God merely an old man in the sky with his fingers crossed (this essentially amounts to open theism or process theology if taken to its logical conclusions).

The central issue that seemed to bug me constantly through this is really the age-old question of who God is. The choice of what to believe here about the nature of God and how to behave accordingly is the crux of the entire human dilemma, and I would submit that all error and sin falls under this heading. I want to be my own god and not let him be God. It's the first mistake of mankind and has been ever since. As Martin Luther put long ago, the breaking of any of the ten commandments, indeed any sin or violation of the Law, is really just the infraction of the first two: to worship God alone and not idols. Furthermore, and getting back to my main point, I would submit that everyone that really believes in Christ and trusts God with their lives, truly are what we can call--Calvinists. Wow, that should cause a stir! More on this in the next post...

Past Few Years - Part 1 - Starting College

I was raised in a Christian home and my parents are the most faithful and trustworthy people I know. I professed my sins at an early age (7-10?) and I know at that time that I understood the Gospel: that I was a sinner and that only Jesus’ payment on the cross in my place was sufficient to “wash away my sins,” and “make me white as snow,” acceptable to God, and take me to heaven. I remember singing that song with my mom when I was very young. I also remember attempting to witness to one of my Mormon friends when I was in 2^nd or 3^rd grade, and realizing that he just didn’t understand what I was talking about. I remember quoting Romans 6:23 to him: that he would die for his sins and without hope if he didn’t have Christ. I remember feeling genuine sadness that he didn’t seem to understand what I was saying about Jesus. I know I was a Christian at this point and that God had completely changed where I was headed in my life through the love and security of my parents.

But the worldview I developed, almost upon stepping into my dorm room into a new universe was without the security and the easy answers to life’s hardest questions I knew back in my parents’ home. Actually the first encounter I can remember with skepticism (which was what I faced in college) was in high school at a book store with my mom. She was looking for a book in the Christian section, so I browsed with her. I came across a book that suggested something about the question of how we know the Bible is true (I can’t remember exactly what it was). I remember being dumbfounded at the notion of questioning the Bible’s veracity, so I immediately began to grasp at straws as to why I believed it. But I came up with next to nothing. In a conversation with my mom at that bookstore, she came near tears when I bluntly asked her “how DO we know the Bible is God’s word?” I guess the shock of her discovering that I didn’t know combined with my shock at the same was hard to swallow. I remember being terrified inside as to the implications of my inability to answer this question. Was everything I said believed a sham? Was I just adopting my parent’s beliefs? Was the Bible the word of God or just an old book?

Later, in college, I would write an essay titled: “Why Do You Believe the Bible?” I sent it out to almost everyone I had the email address of, which in hindsight probably made me the weirdest person some of these people knew. Some of the email addresses I stole off of another guy’s email list in college. So I didn’t even know a large chunk of the people I was sending this out to, and I even gave credit to him as the one who provided the email addresses. I think I was just starting to really use email to communicate with friends, so I didn’t realize how weird it would be to do this. Plus, my first line in the email was: “DON’T DELETE BEFORE READING ALL OF IT”. As I was informed later by the email list guy, this looked very much like a chain letter, though I had never even heard of such a thing. So basically I was a complete idiot. But I sent it out with pride in what I wrote, hoping that it would mean something to them or make someone think. For the most part, as far as content, it was a good paper and reflected the study and research of the Bible I had done on my own time and found to be compelling. The paper itself, however, was shaky in structure, awkward in phrasing, disjointed, unclear, oversimplified, bigoted, judgmental, and expressed well my inability to coherently write (some may ask what has changed since then). But it was sort of my baby (though only 6 pages long) and reflected the immense amount of change I experienced in the first few semesters of my college experience. I had learned a great deal in the field of apologetics without me even knowing the term. And eventually, I had some college papers under my belt that helped my writing style quite a bit.

How I got to that point was a hard road, and lasted about a year (since I emailed the paper around October 2003 and started college September 2002), which actually isn’t that long but it felt much longer. Much of this time was spent alone, since I had a lot of trouble making friends in college, especially during the first semester where I generally didn’t hang out with anyone. I stayed in on the weekends and tried to find any excuse I could to go back home. My first roommate was a 5^th year senior, and was basically the party animal and social king of the dorm (Walton!). I was also noticeably awkward in almost every interaction with him and everyone else in the dorm. Later in the year though, we were decent friends and got along pretty well. But I owe a lot to the influence that my friends in the Wesley Foundation had on me in shaping my spirituality and grounding me in fellowship and support, even if I had some significant disagreements with some of the teachings of Methodism, what with developing Calvinist tendencies and all (perhaps later on this one). That sort of sounds like developing homosexual tendencies. Ha, funny. Anyway, having the Christian surroundings and environment brought to the fore the importance of knowing what I believed and why, especially being in theological disagreement as I was. It helped me face head-on the doubts and questions I had about scripture and Christianity, and forced me to open up the Bible, read books, listen to teachers, and find answers.

Some of the most compelling of arguments for the Bible’s truth for me were those of a more traditional, evidential approach, a la Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel type thinkers that argue for the evidence of Christianity, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and biblical inerrancy. McDowell’s The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (that my mom bought me in high school) was an instrumental guide in helping me discover the Bible’s amazing historicity and accuracy, as well as prophetical consistency and fulfillment. For example, one of the strongest points I ever read was concerning a prophecy in the book of Daniel (9:24-26) which predicts the exact time period, maybe even the exact day, of Jesus the Messiah, the King’s arrival into Jerusalem riding on a donkey’s back in 33 A.D. (Zech. 9:9), his subsequent execution, and the destruction of the temple following. (A recap of this is provided by someone here).

Many more things like this contributed to my increase of faith in the scriptures. Another greatly beneficial experience was listening to an open-air preacher named Tom Short speak on the campus square about Jesus and Christianity at Texas A&M (which was quite controversial I might add, but he was simply a good apologetic evangelist). Some trails I followed, however, seemed great on the front end, but ended up being kind of silly and unfounded, such as the Bible code theory.

All in all, this was one of the most important and shaping times in my life, and I can only credit God in doing a great work on my heart and mind in my first couple of years of college. At this point, I still had many, many problems and shortcomings such as arrogance, close-mindedness, and pride; but it also included times of great humbling and learning about the Bible, which I know have been crucial in my understanding of Jesus and his mercy to me as a sinner. I was also still (perhaps even more) confused as to what it actually meant to be a Christian, to repent from sin, and to walk with God daily (I still do; who doesn’t?). I came to realize just how hard this actually was since I was now responsible for myself in a way that you can’t understand when you’re living with your parents.

That is what college was to me: a great awakening. It was coming to understand that I am to be a man now. No more games. I needed to put away my childishness and move on to maturity. As I was to learn more about later, actually being a man of God and loving Christ was much more than I thought I was bargaining for in these first few years. But I’ll save that for later post(s). Peace out.

Reflection on the Past Few Years - Introduction

I don’t know about you, but I’ve gone through a lot of stages in my life where my beliefs have taken dramatic changes in course. By changes in belief, I mean significant adjustments in thinking and/or behavior as they relate to God, religion, and spirituality. These changes are acquired largely through interaction with others within the context of the church and, perhaps more significantly, through personal study, solitude, struggle, and sin where much of the real meat of life resides, waiting to be experienced. What I mean is that for me, while much of these “changes” were induced by contact with other Christians and personal relationships, so much of my own spiritual direction has taken its cues from great amounts of time spent alone, in prayer or in thought; or, as I have come to discover about myself, from my own sins and immaturity. I mean to discuss those changes which were beneficial, but also those that were detrimental. A lot of the changes have often been fueled by pride or by critique of others. The most significant changes, however, have been for the better and in the direction of growth.

The times of immaturity (which I still go through all the time) are laced with pride and idealism, and are greatly characterized by some serious plank-speck problems. This is where I criticize others and point out the flaws I see (probably most of which are good observations), but in doing so I overlook my own defects (which are legion) and downplay them by pointing out the admittedly more glaring (or at least more public) errors and sins of others. I don’t know how common this is with others, but I feel like it’s a constant struggle to not fall into this trap of hypocrisy. I feel I am getting better at it, or at least I am becoming more aware of it, which I hope is a step in the right direction in terms of growing and eventually weeding out the pride.

Usually when this happens (the weeding that is), I notice more growth in maturity and in holiness. For one, as of late, I have vastly reduced the anger I experience in the car, or at least I have learned how to control it better. I drive slower (which also helps with gas mileage I might add) and am more content with not getting somewhere as fast. I, along with my culture, am obsessed with getting places faster and jamming more things into the day at lower quality than if I just paced myself and accomplished tasks at a higher quality. But I’ve learned to accept the plight of transportation in Houston, TX a little better and am not in such a rush all the time. Lest I become prideful about my humble patience, I will stop here and merely say that there have been a number of significant times where I have noticed growth like this.

In some of my following posts, I would just like to chronicle them in some way so as to perhaps provide a little perspective for myself and where I am headed, and maybe help someone to know me a little better. Much of my experiences in the past few years (generally starting around my time in college) have shaped me into who I am today, which I know is far advanced from where I started. I would just like to try and trace this path the best I can, and perhaps spur myself on into more growth as I reflect on my past. This is really more like my own personal journal of belief, so in some ways this is purely a practice in spiritual matters and not so much something I really need to share with others, but I don’t have too much reservation spilling some of this so I will broadcast it without hesitation. And just maybe it might resonate with some and cause something good to come.

Religion and Revelation

I was thinking about my statements on religion, and I had a couple more things I wanted to say. More broadly, if you think about mankind in its context in the universe purely from a naturalistic, relativistic, man-centered point of view (as the culture would have us believe), then religion and anything abstract simply becomes comical in its absurdity. That is, if you take a cue from postmodern culture today and believe that all religions, worldviews, and truth claims from the perspective of mankind are in effect the same (or they are all viewed as parts of the whole truth, much as in the popular blind men/elephant parable**), then you are really left with a ridiculous notion. This notion being that religiosity does not extend past the minds of humans; or, more accurately, that religion (or anything abstract that mankind comes up with) is imposing meaning and purpose on the universe that is not warranted whatsoever.

If the universe is just material, having a beginning in time with a “Big Bang”, and extending on until all the matter is sucked back into the singularity from which it began, then there really is nothing else to the universe. It simply is what it is. There is no reason for religion if this is all the universe is; humans are nothing but exceedingly complicated conglomerations of chemical reactions and electrical impulses that arose from highly intricate evolutionary changes, initiated from the inception of life that originated in intensely fine-tuned cosmological, geological, climatal, and chemical circumstances. Now I do not claim to be a biology expert and I do not know the extent to which parts of the theory of evolution may be true, but I do know that if what hard-core evolutionists teach about the nature of life and reality is true, then there is absolutely no purpose or reason that humans, and the universe exist. According to this theory, it all began with a bang, and it will all end with a bang; with silence in between the end of this universe and the beginning of the next one. There will be no life, no love, no religion, no meaning whatsoever; just elements, planets, rocks, collisions, fire, explosions, and eventually more life-forms that will be annihilated when the next sun burns out. How could there possibly be meaning in this? And how dare anyone claim meaning and religion that claims this naturalistic theory?

Meaning is something that must be infused into something. An engineer designing a machine must begin with a purpose for the machine. If purpose is not defined, then the machine will never come to be; or if it is made with an unknown purpose, the purpose will never be discovered unless the engineer explains it. If the universe (like a machine in many ways) made itself, as the aforementioned atheistic scientists will claim, then there is no knowing anything as to the purpose of it, except that it has no purpose because no mind, no designer, created it to have one. If this is believed, then anything that is thought about the nature of reality is absolute bunk. You have no basis for claiming how something ought to be, and you certainly have no basis for being religious, since the foundation of all religion (indeed all rational human thinking) is inconveniently plagued with purpose and morality.

The best any atheist (or anyone for that matter) has done to explain religion is to claim that the mind’s sense of religiosity and pursuit of meaning is merely an evolutionary strategy that has arisen to help us survive (this belongs I believe to Richard Dawkins). The problem with this statement, as Tim Keller has pointed out recently, is that if this is true, if all human thinking and beliefs are merely vehicles for human survival as a species, then doesn’t the act of believing in evolution fall into this category as well? Isn’t the scientist’s cerebral act of believing purpose arose from chance merely an evolutionary trick played on the scientist’s mind to help him survive?

What we are left with if this premise is taken to its logical conclusion is the absolute destruction of all human achievement. If there is no purpose in anything (and we can’t avoid this), then that is all there is to say. All creations of man are in the end are just whimsical and nonsensical ingenuity. We are highly decorated and complicated sticks of dynamite, waiting to explode into nothing and into nowhere. Yippee.

While I do not want to give the impression that I am anti-scientific (because I am not), I do want to maintain the utter ridiculousness of believing that the material is all there is and simultaneously claiming purpose for one’s own life. In fact, if the material is all there is, one can make all kinds of unprovable statements about the nature of reality and there is no objective way to denounce them since there is no outside or universal standard of which to view them. For example, I can say that the only purpose in the universe is for me to eat corn everyday, or to learn how to juggle, or for you to learn how to juggle, or to care for the needy, or to always wear a 3-cornered hat. You cannot prove that these are true or false, just like I cannot prove that they are true or false. But we are both left with the fact that neither of us can prove anything, so there is no reason to judge behavior or truth claims since all there is material.

The same can be said about morality. If there is no universal set of morals, then I am just as pleased to kill, maim, rape, and steal as you are to love, give, care, and thank. There is no reason why killing is worse than loving, since we’re all just bunches of arbitrary chemical and electrical reactions. Who’s to say that one is better than another?

But of course no one who has ever claimed relativism will take it this far, to where it logically demands to be taken. This is because everyone has the knowledge and restraint of morality built into their natures and into their consciences. We are all made in the image of God, and as much as we try to escape it, it never escapes us.

The end of my claim is that God, revealed in the man Jesus, is the only possible source of ultimate truth and reality. Since he is the only one ever to have claimed to “come down from heaven”, and historically proven it to be true in the resurrection of his dead body, he is the only one with the credentials to establish himself as such. Man’s search for truth, redemption, and the promised-land on his own merit is useless. All our attempts to get beyond ourselves and get into heaven are futile in comparison with God’s attempt to come to us, and bring us to heaven. Religion is useless. We need Revelation.

** There are literally dozens of different versions of this story that I have seen briefly by searching the internet, but all are essentially the same. Quoting it in the way it is most commonly done is fatally flawed, as pointed out by Lesslie Newbigin in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society:

In the famous story of the blind men and the elephant, so often quoted in the interests of religious agnosticism, the real point of the story is constantly overlooked. The story is told from the point of view of the king and his courtiers, who are not blind but can see that the blind men are unable to grasp the full reality of the elephant and are only able to get hold of part of the truth. The story is constantly told in order to neutralize the affirmation of the great religions, to suggest that they learn humility and recognize that none of them can have more than one aspect of the truth. But, of course, the real point of the story is exactly the opposite. If the king were also blind there would be no story. The story is told by the king, and it is the immensely arrogant claim of one who sees the full truth which all the world’s religions are only groping after. It embodies the claim to know the full reality which relativizes all the claims of the religions and philosophies.

(pg. 9-10)

The Emergent church - I guess this is the continuation of my crappy series a while back that I never did much with...so Part 2

Doug Pagitt makes this statement in the perspectives book Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: “The idea that there is a necessary distinction of matter from spirit, or creation from creator, is being reconsidered.” (pg. 142)

Earlier in this section, Pagitt relates this “reconsidering” of historically accepted Christian doctrine (specifically of God being separate from his creation, as in Genesis 1:1) to the discoveries of quantum physics and their partial overturning of understood Newtonian science in the modern world (specifically, the idea of the wave-particle behavior of light is addressed). In doing so he makes the assumption that Christian doctrine is much like science, in that its “discoveries” are merely products of human ingenuity, rather than revelation from God. Therefore he warrants the idea of a theological evolution of sorts since this opens the door for Christianity to no longer be defined solely by Scripture, but instead by any which way that the prevailing culture may take it.

It seems to me that these emergent folks, in efforts to try to see value in other religious ideas (of which I would say I agree with), are actually stepping over the boundaries of Christianity and into what we might just be able to call heresy.

It seems like they do so only for the sake of rebelling against accepted tradition, and to try and forge a new path and new traditions. The funny thing is that 50 or 100 years down the road, I would bet that those that are following this emergent trend (if there are any left) will be firmly established in the “new” traditions of the apparently-still-emerging church. It is impossible I believe to avoid tradition in any organization. Even if you’re trying at all costs to go against the tides of how things have been done in the past, your tradition then simply becomes rebellion. And if your organization is based on rebellion, on always trying to find a different way to do something, then in the end you are left only with questions and empty hands rather than answers and hands full of God’s words, since the real business of trusting what God says is never gotten around to and is pushed to the bottom of the priority list. I am fully for asking questions and demonstrating humility by having the courage to say “I don’t know,” but when all you have are questions and loosy-goosy theology, when your beliefs are challenged and pressed, you may find that the foundations of sand have washed away. In order to get somewhere, there needs to be a solid foundation to walk on, and not as Rob Bell says a “trampoline” of theology. Instead of jumping up and down on the trampoline of theology, and in effect getting nowhere but back to where we started, we need to stop playing around, set our sights on Christ, pack our bags, and walk to him. Just an opinion though J.

Facebook

I was thinking about how Facebook and other social networking sites are (and blogs for that matter). I think it’s supposed to be really informative about people you know, and help share ideas and info; and communicate better. I think in theory it really can be this way, but I find that I have used it more for the purpose of feeling like I am prying into someone’s personal life without them really asking and wasting any opportunity to actually learn something. In theory I think it’s a great idea, but it seems like the majority of the time I find myself using it in a completely pointless kind of way. Like trying to find out how to add some stupid application or looking at what groups people are in. All of which are complete time wasters and don’t really accomplish anything in terms of getting to know people better or (even crazier) actually communicating with people in a valuable way. I guess that’s not really the point, and it’s supposed to be a huge time waster, but it seems like it has a lot of potential to be a good tool to share information.

I compare it to AOL instant messenger, which was pretty different in that you have access to a much more limited area of personal expression via the profile, which was just a small window. Facebook (and MySpace) has an almost unlimited amount of information that could be displayed on the profile, and many more avenues for communication. And in that way it is more valuable.

But I find that with the greater potential there is also a greater amount of effort put into developing your own profile as opposed to learning more about others and their thoughts. Granted, most of the time the information provided by other people (and probably myself) is plain useless, but sometimes there are things written or shared that are worthy of notice. Maybe I just wish there were more focus on thoughtful posts and discussions, and less on some of the pointless stuff like being a member of a group that doesn’t accomplish anything whatsoever and is just a placeholder because the title of it is funny (or not funny).

Anyway, those were just some thoughts on that.

Blog

I’ve switched around the blog quite a bit, and modified the title since I think it is a bit discouraging to someone that may come across it. While that was sort of the intention in naming this blog since I was trying to make a strong point with it, I think it may be in a little bit of bad taste to have WHORE written across the top. Plus I deleted a bunch of the clutter that was sort of not happening and pointless. I hope it’s more pleasing to the eye and also more beneficial to read, since I’ve been more regular in writing stuff. There still is the issue of whether people will actually read this, which I think is a slim possibility, but I still enjoy writing so I will continue even if my wife is the only one who looks at it. Peace out.

Tim Keller on Predestination

This audio clip of one of Tim Keller’s Q&A sessions is very interesting, and he makes the point that even if you don’t believe in predestination, you are still left with an unsolvable theological problem…

3 cheers for my wife!

I love Emily more than anything on this planet. She’s really cool, and hilarious, and cute. And beautiful J. Just in case you were wondering. More thoughts on this later…

I have a wife…crazy thought…

Religious Nuts

I recently met a Buddhist lady. But she was not a Buddhist simply because she was drawn to the particular teachings of this religion, but (as I assessed it) more as a rebound from some bad experiences she had in “Christian” churches (I use the term loosely). She was subject to some serious abuse from what sounded like preachers of the “prosperity gospel”, meaning that members of the church should give all their money to the preacher and in turn they will be blessed all the more. Meanwhile, the pastor is driving a Ferrari and living in a mansion, while those givers are left with nothing but desperate faith in the preacher’s rotten character. She was very hurt from these experiences and ended up leaving the church and Christianity as well.

But she took it too far and denounced all of Christianity as evil, based on her few experiences in a small, hick Texas town. Surely the perspective of the cultural transcendence of the Gospel from the backwoods of Texas can be blurred a bit. She said she liked Jesus (even loved him), but “couldn’t stand his crazy-ass friends.” I would be very prone to agree with her that there are plenty of people who claim to follow Jesus that are nuts, and sometimes even wolves in sheep’s clothing. But to dismiss them all by a blanket generalization is just plain reckless. I think there’s a lot of people that are nuts from other religions and worldviews, but I can’t judge the truthfulness and value of their substances based on the character of their proponents. I can look at atheists I would say seem nuts, as well as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc. Really, the only common denominator in the nuts of all these groups is that of humanness. People are nuts! And sinful. People do terrible things, regardless of their religious affiliations. This is just one way of expressing the Christian doctrine of total depravity, which says that no one is righteous (Psalm 14:3) and we all do evil, as it is the nature of our unregenerate hearts.

She became Buddhist when she was invited to a temple and felt a feeling of great peace when she prayed there, contrasted to the spiritual chaos that she had experienced in church. While she admittedly had no idea what Buddhism teaches, her affinity for it developed from what she perceived as possessing value, as giving her peace and a sense of acceptance and non-judgment.

But the thing is, like all humanistic religions, that her religion is essentially her preconceived preferences, not particularly Buddhism or Christianity. In effect, she is not appealing to Buddhism and rejecting Christianity as if they are absolutely mutually exclusive (at least in some moral principles). She is merely appealing to what she already believes, indeed knows, is true. She has already formulated her beliefs prior to investigating Christianity or Buddhism, or whatever. It is whatever gives her peace, acceptance, warm feelings, etc. And this is sort of the prevailing wind of this world pertaining to spirituality. In effect, it is just paganism—a certain breed of selfishness that props up its own religion, worldview, and preferences above what is revealed from God. What characterizes man-made religion is that it always originates from the person. It is always man looking up to heaven speculating about what God (or whatever) is like. If this is, in fact, all that religion is (including Christianity), then it is logical that the tenets of relativism are true: there is no religion better than another; in fact, they are all useless in the end since none of them can knowingly make contact with reality. But humans don’t behave this way. Religion is built into us, even when we want to claim relativism. Take these three common sayings claiming relativism from our religious culture:

• “I don’t like this religion; I like THIS one”: This saying essentially appeals not specifically to the religion of the speaker’s liking because it’s superior, but to himself and his own beliefs. This is the opposite of Christianity which says truth comes from God and not from religion or from our perspectives and preferences.
  
  
• “All religions are the same”: This statement says so in an attempt to be accepting and tolerant, but this is actually just another statement of belief/doctrine and immediately defeats the point it tries to make if applied to itself. The insistence that all religions are the same is, in effect, itself a religion, and the chosen one of secularism.
  
  
• “Doctrine isn’t important, let’s all just love each other”: This statement of the unimportance of doctrine is actually making a doctrinal statement, since I could make the opposing unprovable statement that rather we should hate everyone. Love (the real type of love Jesus demonstrates by dying for his people, and for his enemies) is very much a Christian doctrine, and not to be confused with the emotional type of love that an American “Christian” may purport.
  
  

All this is in effect simply pride in oneself instead of in God. It’s all elevating the human ability to discover truth, instead of in God’s ability to reveal it. Surely it’s an arrogant view that props up the religious musings of the fallen sinner’s depraved mind over the mystery-revealing, all-knowing mind of God who created all.